Swiss Mercenary on 1/12/2007 at 02:22
Quote Posted by The_Raven
I haven't heard about that. Which one?
My mistake. They are, instead, reviewing it.
mxleader on 1/12/2007 at 02:58
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I think (hope?) you're missing the bulk of the story, fett. The audience was pretty much rooting for the guy to get his face stomped in by that point, he'd been such an asshole; cutting in line, talking past the deadline, refusing to shut up long enough to let his questions be answered, and so on and so forth.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to hijack a forum by force.
I missed all of that. It would have been a different video if I had known the whole story. I agree that there are rules that do apply to a debate or whatever this was. The Youtube videos tend to not show the whole thing, unless you can view everysingle video posted. But even then, you might miss something. Sounds like the guy may have deserved what he got.
...I still don't like cops very much though...except when I need one.
fett on 1/12/2007 at 03:13
Right on - I found the rest of the video. The guy was being an ass, but six cops couldn't carry the guy out w/out tazering him? If he'd been African American or Arabic, you bet your ass that's what would have happened. Yeah, I said that out loud.
SubJeff on 1/12/2007 at 03:48
Quote Posted by heretic1dg
If you honestly think you would rather be beaten by batons or cap-stunned than tazed, than you probably have experienced none of them.
Edit: Part of the requirement of officers being 'Tazer certified' is them actually being tazed. This certification is required before they can use the Tazer. Look up statistics on Tazer deaths, they are virtually non-existant without extenuating circumstance. A hell of a lot safer than being beaten by batons for example.
What nonsense is this? The guy was on the ground, hands cuffed behind his back, multiple cops on him, not being violent and isn't a big guy anyway.
What reason is there to tazer him? And why should I care that they have been tazered as part of training? Does that somehow make it's use on a helpless person any less the the torture is clearing fucking is?
And I beg to differ on your "safer than being beaten by battons" thing. I know some UK cops who've been on riot duty and I'll bet the standard non-lethal incapacitating targets are the same here as they are there. Tazers seem to be killing young people these days and I'll wager that they are having an effect on the heart. Once some people with known cardiac conduction problems or pacemakers are killed the rules on them will change. It'll happen.
Swiss Mercenary on 1/12/2007 at 06:04
Quote:
they are virtually non-existant without extenuating circumstance
Like, say, a heart condition?
I've heard a cop tell flat-out to a class full of students what may not be the RCMP's official opinion on taser-induced deaths, but what was certainly shared by him, and more then likely, most of his buddies.
"Those people would have died due to their condition anyways."
catbarf on 1/12/2007 at 20:46
Quote Posted by mxleader
I missed all of that. It would have been a different video if I had known the whole story. I agree that there are rules that do apply to a debate or whatever this was. The Youtube videos tend to not show the whole thing, unless you can view everysingle video posted. But even then, you might miss something. Sounds like the guy may have deserved what he got.
...I still don't like cops very much though...except when I need one.
But what does it matter? Abuse of force is still abuse of force, no matter how much they deserve it. If, say, Saddam Hussein had been tortured for days before his execution there'd have been uproar. However, according to you and the others here, everyone would just nod and say 'Well he deserved it' and go along.
heretic on 1/12/2007 at 20:55
Quote Posted by catbarf
But what does it matter? Abuse of force is still abuse of force, no matter how much they deserve it. If, say, Saddam Hussein had been tortured for days before his execution there'd have been uproar. However, according to you and the others here, everyone would just nod and say 'Well he deserved it' and go along.
That's just it.
There was no "abuse of (use of) force". The officers were OFFICIALLY CLEARED of any wrongdoing, despite the misgivings of various alarmists and their endless hyperbolic rants.
(
http://www.president.ufl.edu/incident/FDLE-Executive-Summary.pdf)
catbarf on 1/12/2007 at 22:56
And the fact that Bush was voted into office does not make him the best president we could possibly have had. Nor does the acquittal of OJ Simpson mean that he was 100% innocent.
Watch the video. Do you see ANY reason for the guy getting tased AFTER being surrounded by security officers?
heretic on 1/12/2007 at 23:19
Quote Posted by catbarf
Watch the video. Do you see ANY reason for the guy getting tased AFTER being surrounded by security officers?
?!?
While watching the video and ignoring everything else may make for conjecture, the reality of the entire incident does not.
Read the report.
Tocky on 1/12/2007 at 23:32
Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?
